Talk:Proto-Austroasiatic language

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Proto-Austroasiatic language article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

How old is "not as old as frequently assumed"?

The article now includes the following, not very informative, paragraph:

Sidwell (2007, 2009) suggests that the likely homeland of Austro-Asiatic/Mon–Khmer is near central Vietnam, and that the family is not as old as frequently assumed.

I do not criticise or question this; but I really would like to see it explained a little. Approximately how old is Austro-Asiatic/Mon–Khmer frequently assumed to be? In older works, adhering to the traditional theory of a dichotomy of the Austro-Asiatic languages into a Mon-Khmer and a Munda group, what ages are assigned to the entire Austro-Asiatic family on the one hand, and to the Mon-Khmer subfamily on the other? Approximately how old does Sidwell suggest that the family is?

I think the article would be improved, if the answers to these questions were added to the article; possibly in a new section headed Chronology or Chronology problems or something similar. JoergenB (talk) 20:54, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Simply check the ref (the abstract), and Sidwell and Blench (2011) for more detail: The date given by Diffloth is 7000 BP (i. e., 5000 BCE), and other authors give dates up to more than a millennium older, while Sidwell prefers 4000 BP (i. e., 2000 BCE) based on the dating of the earliest rice cultivation in South East Asia. However, I agree that it is awkward that this traditional dating is not explicitly mentioned either here or in Austroasiatic languages, where the assertion hangs similarly in the air (and where you can find the second source linked). --Florian Blaschke (talk) 02:53, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved the part about chronology to a dedicated section as suggested, since the lead section was dominated by chronological issues. --SynConlanger (talk) 11:28, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Homeland

In response to this request, what van Driem (2011) says (pp. 376–377) is

Assuming the veracity of the father tongue hypothesis for the spread of Austroasiatic, the available data could be interpreted as pointing towards the Brahmaputra basin as the point of origin for this language family.

Van Driem spends the whole particle arguing for the "father tongue hypothesis" (under which languages correlate with Y chromosome markers) for Austroasiatic. He mentions the Pearl River only once (on p. 364), in connection with the modern range of Hmong-Mien.

There is no consensus on the homeland of Austroasiatic, as ironically demonstrated by the WP:REFBOMB recently added to the infobox,[1] which includes refs positing the Yangtze valley, south China, middle Mekong, Brahmaputra basin and Red River basin. The infobox should therefore not single out any of these proposals. Kanguole 12:10, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Got your point. Thanks and regards,CharlesWain (talk) 12:29, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]